jopo
New Member
Posts: 30
|
Post by jopo on Mar 12, 2019 9:26:18 GMT
OK I have to think like a skeptic. Drop the sheeple hat. We are told in computer models that pressure is assumed to be constant in modeling. What would happen to clouds, albedo, ASR etc if it was not constant! Is this factored into models? ? Pressure and temperature. Only 2 minutes of your life
|
|
|
Post by IB DaMann on Mar 12, 2019 10:00:58 GMT
Is this factored into models? Who said there are any models? The reason you have to ask shows that you, like everyone else, have never seen any. By the way, when you write "computer models" you actually mean "computer programs" which always output exactly what they are programmed to output. If you write a program to output "Hello world!" then that is what it will output. If you write a program to output nice columns of "increasing temperatures" then that is exactly what you will get. To obscure the fact that this is exactly what is going on, there are to be no models that are implemented in computer programs, there are only to be computer programs that are misnomered "models."
|
|
|
Post by IB DaMann on Mar 12, 2019 10:16:28 GMT
Forcing = (396+3.7)*emissivity So that's the new definition, i.e. "Forcing" = "Warming." What is "Cooling" called in your lexicon? "The-Dark-Side-of-the-Forcing" ? I interpreted this as a forcing at the surface however it seems to be defined as forcing at TOA. Umm, science has already answered this question and emissivity applies to the entire planet as a whole. Your attempts to divide the atomic unit makes your conclusions/results meaningless.
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Mar 12, 2019 18:47:32 GMT
Fatjohn, let me try to explain my point again and hopefully, this is clearer. The 396 w/m^2 number you use in your formula is not a TOA value. Excluding albedo, (the solar radiation that is reflected and not absorbed by the earth), the current TOA value for incoming Solar radiation is around 239 w/m^2, the same as theoutgoing radiation net of albedo. If there was a change at the TOA of 3.7 w/m^2, then the percentage change would be 3.7/239 or 1.55%. What you have done is use an emissivity factor to convert the 396 to an equivalent TOA number. But your formula also applies the same emissivity factor to the 3.7 value even though it is already a TOA number. After doubling of CO2 you say at the TOA Forcing = (396+3.7)*emissivity instead of Forcing = 396*emissivity + 3.7 I realize you have used slightly different emissivity values for the before doubling and after doubling cases , but the difference does not make up for the error because the emissivity you use is applied to the 3.7 TOA number. The percentage forcing increase is actually 3.7/239 or 1.55% versus about 0.94% for the method you use. As a result you calculate a 0.67K temperature increase instead of 1.11K Like you, I have an engineering degree, but after I moved on to Sr VP of Technology and then onto a career in investments I haven’t used those skills much lately. So my rusty thinking can be off. Where am I going wrong? Ah yes found it. Well I agree with you now. The whole basis of my argument was based on my misunderstanding of the 3.7 number. I interpreted this as a forcing at the surface however it seems to be defined as forcing at TOA. So yes you're reasoning of how you should adapt my calculation then seems to be correct and yes the calculation then becomes in line with the wider acknowledged 1.1 degree sensitivity. I do believe that they just deduce the 1.5 and 4.5 figure independently by just propagating a model of the climate system into the future but by all means, explain how you think the IPCC comes to their conclusion. Fatjohn, here’s my simplified take on the IPCC case for using the 4.5C Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity as the upper end of the likely range. It’s similar to your view. IPCC claims the direct climate sensitivity is 1.1C per doubling. They note there are several models which show feedbacks of around 3.4C per doubling (some show numbers significantly higher). Therefore, they continue to use 1.1+3.4 or 4.5C as the upper end of the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity range estimate. How can they justify that number given the past history of CO2 growth and global warming? Here’s the historical GISS global temperatures with 7-year smoothing. The IPCC claim (guess) that the “flat” global temperatures from 1947 to 1972 were due to changes in aerosols which more than offset the CO2 warming. They say the rising temperatures for the period prior to 1947 was due to aerosols but in the opposite direction. They note that some models show that the growth in global temperatures for the period since 1972 is mostly due to CO2. Based on the claims that aerosols caused the cooling and CO2 caused the warming, the Transient Climate Sensitivity for the period 1972 to 2016 for a doubling of CO2 can be shown to be about 2.7C. Some models show that the Transient Climate Sensitivity is about 0.6 times the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity. Therefore, the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity can be claimed to be about 2.7/0.6 or 4.5C per doubling of CO2. In summary, the IPCC does not claim the models are at all accurate, but they use model results and the aerosol guess to make their case.
|
|
|
Post by mondeoman on Mar 12, 2019 22:56:13 GMT
Now plot the temps, not an anamaly.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Mar 12, 2019 23:38:38 GMT
|
|
|
Post by fatjohn1408 on Mar 14, 2019 11:17:10 GMT
duwayneWell even if the reasoning behind it is right, and I dont claim it is, the reason of the fast rise between 1972-2018 is partially because the period 1945-1972 was kept artificially cool. So there was a catch up move. I guess we'll see how it plays out. So far nothing has happened due to global warming. None of the ice-sheets have destabilized (what happened with that piece of ice twice the size of NY?), you can even claim that the storms are less frequent and intense etc. I'm not worried.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Mar 14, 2019 13:22:56 GMT
duwayneWell even if the reasoning behind it is right, and I dont claim it is, the reason of the fast rise between 1972-2018 is partially because the period 1945-1972 was kept artificially cool. So there was a catch up move. I guess we'll see how it plays out. So far nothing has happened due to global warming. None of the ice-sheets have destabilized (what happened with that piece of ice twice the size of NY?), you can even claim that the storms are less frequent and intense etc. I'm not worried. You're right ... about the physical climate but ..... you should be very worried about the political climate. In Oz, there are many pollies who know there is a climate scam but are tripping over their tongues to sound like true believers. A friend emailed me today saying I’m running out of energy to fight causes. #MeToo
|
|
|
Post by IB DaMann on Mar 14, 2019 15:50:56 GMT
duwayne Well even if the reasoning behind it is right, and I dont claim it is, the reason of the fast rise between 1972-2018 is partially because the period 1945-1972 was kept artificially cool. Is it possible for a planet to be kept "artificially cool" for a couple-three decades? So there was a catch up move. Presuming a planet was kept artificially cool for a couple-three decades, is it possible for there to be a "catch up move" that makes up for lost time and Global Warming"?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 14, 2019 18:35:33 GMT
Yep.
|
|
|
Post by fatjohn1408 on Mar 14, 2019 23:30:27 GMT
duwayne Well even if the reasoning behind it is right, and I dont claim it is, the reason of the fast rise between 1972-2018 is partially because the period 1945-1972 was kept artificially cool. Is it possible for a planet to be kept "artificially cool" for a couple-three decades? So there was a catch up move. Presuming a planet was kept artificially cool for a couple-three decades, is it possible for there to be a "catch up move" that makes up for lost time and Global Warming"? 1) Yes I do believe so, nuclear winter for example. 2) Well it depends, I try to see it through the IPCC's glasses and try to find holes in their reasoning. The way the IPCC sees things I believe is strictly through an earth radiation budget. X radians will cause Y temperature after a certain time. The Y will be the same whether or not their was a temporary cloud of aerosols emitted in between. The 'after a certain time' is important there's off course some type of delay because oceans are the most massive heat sinks on the planet and it takes a while to heat them up. So you will have a limit here with how fast you can catch up and if you can catch up at all since according to the IPCC the steady state temperature continuously rises due to CO2 emissions.
|
|
|
Post by IB DaMann on Mar 15, 2019 12:03:03 GMT
1) Yes I do believe so, nuclear winter for example. That does not artificially cool the planet. That only alters the temperature of the bottom of the atmosphere. The average global temperature would remain the same. 2) Well it depends, I try to see it through the IPCC's glasses and try to find holes in their reasoning. The way the IPCC sees things I believe is strictly through an earth radiation budget. Well, you can poke holes right there. Any mention of a "radiation budget" implies science denial, that the earth somehow radiates differently from Stefan-Boltzmann. 4) Warming between 1850 and 2011 has been about 1.06 degrees if we go by the five year average of the BEST dataset There are no valid datasets that allow any useful conclusions. Any and all claims are pure fabrications.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Mar 17, 2019 0:45:45 GMT
|
|
|
Post by IB DaMann on Mar 17, 2019 2:52:14 GMT
Here's a physics colloquium which Prof. Happer taught at UNC, Sept. 8, 2014, about the process through which atmospheric CO2 warms the Earth, and its implications: I looked it over. This Prof. Happer is a fraud, pure and simple. His target audience is the scientifically illiterate crowd, i.e. those who are impressed by slides with the right gibberbabble. I noticed that no one asked any questions about any of the myriad of physics violations and otherwise utter nonsense he was selling. The thought crossed my mind that maybe at some point he would shout "Surprise! I was JOKING! I just wanted to see who was paying attention" but as he moved from slide to slide the benefit of the doubt faded away. I got a kick out of the first slide with math on it (around the 16-minute mark) when he expresses how he hates putting any math in his lectures because he doesn't want to frighten the audience but how he just needed to show the IPCC's "definition" of Global Warming (the math/science was completely bogus) ... but then some while later he rifles slide after slide of incomprehensible math-babble (I guess at that point he ceased to care about his audience anymore) ... and yes, it was embarrassingly meaningless babble. At that point in his sermon he was no different from a fundamentalist Christian preacher who is mesmerizing his congregation by speaking in tongues. Don't waste your time with this video ... unless you like to be manipulated by a religious preacher. Btw, his major credentials are his many memberships in organizations with "Science" in the name that are happy to accept the dues he pays. Oh, and he is a businessman who sells tech. I'm guessing that his Global Warming sales pitch is related to something he sells to people who don't know any better. He is no scientist, that much is clear. Yes, he certainly wants to be one, but he apparently can only peddle physics violations. @ missouriboy - did you fall for this guy's schtick? How easily?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 24, 2019 10:41:05 GMT
|
|